Climate change - the POLITICAL debate (Vol 7)
Discussion
GroundZero said:
El stovey said:
As if by magic.
Classic examples above of the sort who get (and even start threads asking for) their facts from TB rather than reputable scientific sources.
Seems like you are acknowledging that the IPCC is not a reputable source?Classic examples above of the sort who get (and even start threads asking for) their facts from TB rather than reputable scientific sources.
I’m saying the GWPF (and Turbobloke) aren’t reliable sources of scientific information.
GroundZero said:
Pan Pan Pan said:
I have indeed acknowledged that there is no solution to the population problem. We normally get the f*ckwitted who start making comments about culling, suicide, killing the old etc, but my view is that every person who has landed on the planet, has at the very least, the right to live out their lives as fully and for as long as possible, so the f*ckwit comments are `not' an answer.
Not a single person, out of the countless billions who have been, and are on the planet, asked to be born, that is always in the control? of those who came before them.
We will (like lemmings) simply grow the population, to the point where it outstrips the planets ability to supply and sustain our numbers.
Humans do not have the solution, but nature will come up with one. The problem with this, is that nature, by its very nature, means that the solution it comes up with, will not necessarily be humane.
Agree with that.Not a single person, out of the countless billions who have been, and are on the planet, asked to be born, that is always in the control? of those who came before them.
We will (like lemmings) simply grow the population, to the point where it outstrips the planets ability to supply and sustain our numbers.
Humans do not have the solution, but nature will come up with one. The problem with this, is that nature, by its very nature, means that the solution it comes up with, will not necessarily be humane.
I've always said one of the fundamental elephant in the room issues with what much of this 'climate change' hype is all about is more to do with over-population rather than much else. But instead the blame is being put on to CO2.
It also ties in to the narrative of "endless growth in a finite world", which is an obvious unsustainable outlook.
Western nations are unlikely to take the route of controlling birth rates, and instead are starting to ignore the obvious and look purely at yet more growth, in that economists are claiming a population crisis in terms of not enough people of working age to support the old.
I don't see the point of growing the ponzi pyramid even more knowing that, as you elude to, nature will not be kind in its solution, which will come in the form of mass starvation, military conflicts for resources, mass migration (which can be argued to have already started), along with ongoing damage to the environment. And still with all the calls for yet more people, those advocating for a colder planet will never see their dream come true, if all is to be believed as per their typical narratives and CO2 from more billions of human activity is to feed in to the atmosphere.
Regarding the likely conflicts for resources, I can't see the Chinese communist party (with its nuclear arsenal and military might) being so kind to others when their 1.45billion person (mandate) demand eventually means it has to take from others when its own borders can not supply.
I guess the same can be said for the USA.
Any way, the future is looking a bit bleak.
Edited by GroundZero on Thursday 12th May 14:46
I am still shocked that there are some out there who seem to believe that we can carry on as we are but that somehow we will be able to avoid paying the environmental price for doing this??
Perhaps if we knit our orgasms, recycle our tea bags, potato peelings and anything else we have already dug up, and used, we `might' be able to last a little longer, but the end result will be the same.
GroundZero said:
turbobloke said:
While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tz1MiX1p5I
Revealing video (but contains a lot of which has already been put forward in this thread), which should be watched by all in the discussion.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Tz1MiX1p5I
But as the introduction mentions, its like those who interpreted the bible, there will be those that simply dismiss and deny what is in the reports because it opposed their view of the religion, and importantly may oppose their 'vehicle' for political gain.
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 13th May 12:59
durbster said:
GroundZero said:
The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?
So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
Incredible logic there. If you want to find out what the IPCC says, you must ignore what the IPCC says and instead only listen the GWPF's version of what the IPCC says. So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
In the same way that the best way to find out what's going on in Ukraine is to only watch Russian state media.
eg Frederikse et al 2020 - from whence the "Greenland's ice sheet isn't shrinking any faster today that it was eight decades ago' claim is derived.
What I found was a graph with a peak in greenland ice melt rate in the 1940s followed by a decrease until the eighties when it started increasing again and is now back to the same rate as the 1940s (as per the graph anyway - you have to doubt we had good obs in the 1940s) but still on an upward trajectory so for the rate to exceed the 1940s just wait a while.
Edited by kerplunk on Friday 13th May 13:03
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
GroundZero said:
El stovey said:
Hardly a surprise when it’s the same old GWPF propaganda that TBs been endlessly parroting and trying to indoctrinate simpletons with for years on here.
No It should not be watched by all.
Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.
The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?No It should not be watched by all.
Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.
So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
Classic examples above of the sort who get (and even start threads asking for) their facts from TB rather than reputable scientific sources.
mko9 said:
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
GroundZero said:
El stovey said:
Hardly a surprise when it’s the same old GWPF propaganda that TBs been endlessly parroting and trying to indoctrinate simpletons with for years on here.
No It should not be watched by all.
Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.
The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?No It should not be watched by all.
Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.
So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
Classic examples above of the sort who get (and even start threads asking for) their facts from TB rather than reputable scientific sources.
durbster said:
GroundZero said:
The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?
So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
Incredible logic there. If you want to find out what the IPCC says, you must ignore what the IPCC says and instead only listen the GWPF's version of what the IPCC says. So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
In the same way that the best way to find out what's going on in Ukraine is to only watch Russian state media.
Randy Winkman said:
mko9 said:
El stovey said:
dickymint said:
GroundZero said:
El stovey said:
Hardly a surprise when it’s the same old GWPF propaganda that TBs been endlessly parroting and trying to indoctrinate simpletons with for years on here.
No It should not be watched by all.
Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.
The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?No It should not be watched by all.
Why not get your facts from reputable scientific sources and associated journals and publications instead of something which is obviously a politically motivated advocacy group.
So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
Classic examples above of the sort who get (and even start threads asking for) their facts from TB rather than reputable scientific sources.
It’s hard to keep the facts under control though.
hairykrishna said:
If you're interested in the facts why on earth bother with some dudes presentation where he effectively is just telling you which bits of the IPCC report support his views?
Well that's the whole game of this politics isn't it? 
As soon as the issue became political, the agendas for political gain developed and then started to produce the necessary narratives, all based up on which facts were useful and which should be ignored.
Ivan stewart said:
durbster said:
GroundZero said:
The 'facts' as you put it. in that video, are coming from the IPCC reports themselves. So, not sure why you would have a complaint with that if you are signed up to the IPCC narratives?
So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
Incredible logic there. If you want to find out what the IPCC says, you must ignore what the IPCC says and instead only listen the GWPF's version of what the IPCC says. So yes, I'd say if anyone looking in on this discussion wants to see what the IPCC reports say (or do not say), for the 'facts', then please watch the video.
In the same way that the best way to find out what's going on in Ukraine is to only watch Russian state media.
GroundZero said:
hairykrishna said:
If you're interested in the facts why on earth bother with some dudes presentation where he effectively is just telling you which bits of the IPCC report support his views?
Well that's the whole game of this politics isn't it? As soon as the issue became political, the agendas for political gain developed and then started to produce the necessary narratives, all based up on which facts were useful and which should be ignored.
durbster said:
Diderot said:
durbster said:
robinessex said:
durbster said:
turbobloke said:
While agw central won't be pleased to see or hear heresy, this (below) presents material not available from the msm on what the science says and doesn't say alongside what politicians claim it says.
<link>
To save you a click, this is the GWPF's annual lecture from November last year. <link>
It's up to you if you want to get your science from fringe political lobby groups with shady funding and a history of spreading misinformation that benefits the fossil fuel industry, or you could get your science from literally any credible, established science organisation in the world.
I suggested people either go to the primary source, or have it relayed by any established and credible scientific institute in the world.
Getting your science through the filter of the GWPF or Heartland Institute is the very definition of putting your head in the sand.
Where do you get your information from Diderot?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-climate-edi...
Of course Justin Rowlatt, their so-called Climate Editor, wouldn't have a sister Cordelia who was a member of Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain, would he? Or a wife called Bee, former BBC reporter, who was also an Extinction Rebellion activist would he?
According to another article in The Times, their source from the BBC views him as a 'campaigner'.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/bbc-climate-edi...
Be careful where you get your information from.
Edited by Diderot on Friday 13th May 16:33
hairykrishna said:
If you're interested in the facts why on earth bother with some dudes presentation where he effectively is just telling you which bits of the IPCC report support his views?
You make it sound that the IPCC is not a 'political' organisation and whatever they say is fact. I'm pretty sure you know better than that Of course there are a few in here that tremble at the mere mention of the IPCC
Source.....
dickymint said:
hairykrishna said:
If you're interested in the facts why on earth bother with some dudes presentation where he effectively is just telling you which bits of the IPCC report support his views?
You make it sound that the IPCC is not a 'political' organisation and whatever they say is fact. I'm pretty sure you know better than that Edited by kerplunk on Friday 13th May 17:58
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
hairykrishna said:
If you're interested in the facts why on earth bother with some dudes presentation where he effectively is just telling you which bits of the IPCC report support his views?
You make it sound that the IPCC is not a 'political' organisation and whatever they say is fact. I'm pretty sure you know better than that err i haven't watched that video yet
Do you think the IPCC is not a political organisation?
dickymint said:
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
hairykrishna said:
If you're interested in the facts why on earth bother with some dudes presentation where he effectively is just telling you which bits of the IPCC report support his views?
You make it sound that the IPCC is not a 'political' organisation and whatever they say is fact. I'm pretty sure you know better than that err i haven't watched that video yet
Do you think the IPCC is not a political organisation?
Yes/no.
Diderot said:
durbster said:
Diderot said:
The BBC is always a good source of misinformation.
Devastating comment.Where do you get your information from Diderot?
Honestly Diderot, considering how many times you walk yourself into this humiliation, one might expect you to have thought of something at least resembling a credible source that you could pretend supports your position.
But nope, you've got nothing, and that answers the question perfectly.
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
kerplunk said:
dickymint said:
hairykrishna said:
If you're interested in the facts why on earth bother with some dudes presentation where he effectively is just telling you which bits of the IPCC report support his views?
You make it sound that the IPCC is not a 'political' organisation and whatever they say is fact. I'm pretty sure you know better than that err i haven't watched that video yet
Do you think the IPCC is not a political organisation?
Yes/no.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff